Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

You're corect.  I accidentally sent it only to you.

David Barrett wrote:

> Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
>
>> David Barrett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the 10 principles are our guide, I see no requirement for 
>>> same-license code merging, and thus I think it's ok.
>>>
>> I think blocking that would violate 3, which requires allowing 
>> derivative works.  A merged program is a derivative of both original 
>> ones, and therefore must be allowed by each original program's license.
>
>
> (Matthew -- I'm assuming you intended to post this to the list, so I'm 
> replying to the list.  Sorry if this was intented to be private!)
>
> Well, I disagree in two ways.  The first is that two licenses with 
> different Initial Developers are in fact two separate licenses.  I 
> mean, how can they be the same license if they are legally different 
> (ie, assign different rights to different people)?  This strict 
> definition of license is compatible with your strict definition of 
> Open Source.
>
> However, my second disagreement is with your definition of Open 
> Source.  I don't dispute that it's a valid viewpoint.  But I think 
> there are other viewpoints that are also valid, and that many of them 
> are compatible with the third principle of OSI.  To quote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Derived Works
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow 
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the 
> original software.
>
>     Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support 
> independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid 
> evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and 
> redistribute modifications.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By my reading, it doesn't explicitly speak to the issue of merging 
> separate works that happen to use the same license, and it certainly 
> doesn't address the issue of Initial Developers.  So at best, it's 
> unclear.  I think your definition of Open Source is compatible with 
> it, as is mine, as are surely others.
>
> -david
>